The Imperishable Record, Forgiveness, and the Future of Criminal Justice

Bail decisions present a fundamental challenge for data-driven decision support systems. When bail is denied, the counterfactual outcome of whether the defendant would have appeared in court remains unobserved. As a result, historical bail data embed structural label indeterminacy: future decisions are influenced by past decisions whose outcomes are only partially knowable. Building automated systems on such data risks introducing bias and reinforcing feedback loops. This raises a core question for machine-learning systems intended to assist judicial actors: how should cases in which bail was denied be treated during model development? In a case study of bail decisions from the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, we evaluate five contemporary approaches to handling label indeterminacy across three machine learning models, including a novel label imputation method motivated by the dynamics of bail decisions. Each method relies on unverifiable assumptions, yet all influence the models' predictive behaviour, sometimes even more so than the choice of model itself. Explainable AI analysis further reveals that these effects extend to the models' internal decision-making processes as well. Finally, we consider the notion of label indeterminacy from a legal perspective and assess the legitimacy of these approaches in the context of bail decision-making.

We present an ethnographic study of an alternative approach to data work, developed by a civic-tech initiative that builds datasets for training and benchmarking online safety systems. They aim to respond to online safety concerns from a feminist perspective, by building safety datasets collaboratively with those most impacted by online harms. In this paper, we examine how this approach aims to reorient data work as a site for repair and redress, and trace the struggles they encounter in the process. Specifically, we draw attention to the challenges and tensions involved in advancing just reward for data work and collective governance of AI datasets. Examining these challenges through an STS-informed lens of reparative justice and repair, we argue that the work of repairing data work (and AI) lies, fundamentally, in resetting the ties of accountability. At a time heightened emphasis on efforts like safety evaluations and red teaming to make AI more responsible, we highlight the need to confront foundational questions about how the humans involved in these efforts relate to the datasets and systems they help produce. A reparative lens demands that we interrupt prevailing norms of data work and place at their centre, not AI or datasets, but those most harmed by the neglect, oversight and exclusion animated in the current modes of dataset production. This, we argue, offers a bold vision for responsibility and contributes towards a critical agenda for building alternative futures of data and AI practice.

AI-driven algorithms and automated tools are increasingly embedded in the correctional landscape, shaping parole eligibility,release decisions, and surveillance. These tools are also often framed as objective, inevitable solutions to inefficiency andbias. Yet, these computational systems are rarely designed with input from justice-impacted individuals, which means theymight fail to address the real needs of incarcerated people. To address this gap, we surveyed 31 formerly incarcerated peopleabout their parole experiences and their visions for technologies that could support parole preparation. Contrary to dominantassumptions, participants did not imagine computational tools as instruments to dismantle the prison system, but as resourcesfor navigating power: translating complex parole concepts into culturally familiar terms, documenting personal transformationin board-legible ways, and recognizing the often-invisible labor of families. We argue that these imaginaries point towardtechnologies designed for strategic agency, where tools help incarcerated individuals and their families build the capacity tonavigate existing power structures in pursuit of freedom. We conclude by reframing computational tools for parole awayfrom surveillance and toward human-centered systems that support people in navigating carceral power structures.